Contemporary Planning Theories

In this weeks reading, New Directions in Planning Theory, Susan Fainstein discuses three contemporary approaches in planning theory, namely, the communicative model, New Urbanism, and the just city. She explores whether theses approaches are able to achieve a high quality of life in the context of a “global capitalist political economy”. It is this goal that Fainstein believes to be the primary objective of modern urban planning.

The communicative model advocates that the central function of planners is to listen to and communicate with the various stakeholders involved in planning. It is then the job of the planner to find a solution that the various groups can agree on. Among other theoretical and practical deficiencies, Fainstein identifies “the gap between rhetoric and action” as a flaw of the communicative model. To me this flaw seems fundamental- for if there is indeed dissociation between words and physical realties then communicative planning is by definition an inadequate planning theory.

New Urbanism is a planning theory that is design based and concerned primarily with the physical form. Despite it’s popularity, this theory can be criticized for it’s focus on physical determinism i.e. it seeks the achievement of social justice through purely physical means. I do agree on one level that this a simplification of the diverse and numerous mechanisms that function in the planning domain. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the manipulation of physical forms is not a bad place to start when it comes to achieving an equitable society.

The just city is a normative theory that involves radical democracy and politically economy. Essentially, it advocates extensive civil participation and equitable distribution of wealth and services, as well as increasing wealth and expanding the middle class. In contrast to the previous two approaches, to me this theory seems to be a bit distant from the planning realm. By this I mean that while the communicative model and new urbanism have specific goals in terms of the planners involvement and the physical form, the just city is more idealistic and dissociated with the practicalities of the profession.

Also, here is an interesting video about New Urbanism:

Developments in Planning Theory: Paradigm Shifts?

This week’s reading was by Nigel Taylor from Planning Perspectives (1999).  It describes three significant shifts in planning theory since 1945.  The first occurred in the 1960’s with a change in planning from a design activity to one that incorporated more rigorous scientific analyses.  The second also occurred in the 60’s and was a shift that transformed planners from technical experts to facilitators or mediators in the planning process.  The last shift was associated with the broader philosophical change in western thought and culture from modernism to post-modernism.  In relation to planning theory, it was essentially a shift from simplicity and functionality to more of a focus on aesthetics and the recognition of the immense complexities involved in planning.

Thomas Kuhn author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 
(Source: http://www.molwick.com/).m/)

Taylor discusses whether each of this shifts can be considered ‘paradigm shifts’ as it was used in it’s original sense.  The term was first used in Thomas Kuhn’s history of scientific development.  In this context paradigm shift’s are described as changes in fundamental ‘world views’.  For example, from the view that the world is flat to the realisation that it is indeed spherical.  Taylor concludes that the shifts in planning theory can not be considered paradigmatic because no theories were entirely supplanted.  Rather elements of older theories continued along with the new ones.  For example, while planning expanded to include scientific and rational analyses, concerns for aesthetics and the physical form have certainly remained to this day.

I found this article particularly interesting.  To often does the original meaning of words and phrases become distorted when they are popularised.  When such an interesting term such as ‘paradigm shift’ is introduced to common knowledge it seems inevitable that it becomes the vogue.  Also, I found the article pertinent to the debate over urban planning’s validity as a profession.  For if the evolutions of planning theory could indeed be considered paradigm shifts, that would, in a sense, put them on par with scientific theories.  Such a status would certainly add creditability to the planning profession in the view of a sceptic.

Modernism and Early Urban Planning

As described by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout in Early Urban Planning (1998), the planning profession under went much change through the 19^th century to the mid 20^th century. Early city planning developed in response to over-crowding and poor living conditions caused by mass rural to urban migration during the industrial revolution. The parks movement sought to alleviate the unaesthetic and unhealthy nature of industrial cities by including open green spaces into the urban form (eg. Central Park in Manhattan, New York)

The Garden City movement begun by Ebenzer Howard was a further progression of urban planning in addressing the full gamut of urban development issues. Howard envisioned the creation of towns with small populations that would provide the ameneties of urban life while retaining connection with surroudning natural areas.

Concerns for public health and green space where replaced by the City Beautiful Movement. The movement’s primary focus was the beautification of cities using monumental grandeur. A highly influential advocate of the movement was Daniel Burnham who created the famous Plan for Chicago in 1909.

The aesthetically driven goals of City Beautiful were eventually supplanted by concerns for the efficiency and functionality of cities. This shift was associated with the rise of Progressivism before and after WW1. It sought to fully engage the height of scientific thinking into the development of society.

Early planning tended not to go beyond the limits of single cities. Patrick Geddes, however, expanding on the ideas of Ebenzer Howard, expressed the need for a regional scope in planning. This idea was furthered by proponents such as Lewis Mumford who saw the development of transport and communication technologies as an opportunity to decentralized urban areas into surrounding regions.

In 1922 Charles Eduard Jeaneret proposed “A Contemporary City for Three Million People”. It was a modernist vision of a large-scale settlement of unadorned skyscrapers separated by open parkland. Although it seemed to be in direct opposition to Howards’s Garden City thought, this model actually held many of the same ideals such as city decongestion and density retention. An alternative modernist form was proposed by Frank Lloyd Wright. He envisioned cities with no substantial suburban concentration, rather sprawling suburbs of acre blocks with automobiles as the dominant transport mode. It is interesting to note that both these visions of urban form have come to be the dominant features of large cities of today.